Talk:Van Halen/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Reunion Tour

They're holding their press conference right now, and officially announced the 2007/2008 Reunion Tour. Someone should edit the article to mention this.

Other editors have updated the article. VisitorTalk 05:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Michael Anthony commented on his blog (http://madanthonyblog.blogspot.com/2007/08/thanks-for-support.html) that he was not asked if we wanted to participate in the 2007 reunion. Anthony also provided a polite recommendation of Wolfie: "It's not that I'm not touring with Van Halen because I'm going out with Sammy, I'm going out with Sammy because I was not invited to do the VH tour. Sammy told me that if I was asked to be part of the VH tour and decided to do it, it would be totally cool, and it would not tarnish our friendship in the least!! Well it's not to be, and life goes on. I'll still be out there with Sam, and I can't wait to do some partying with all of you. One last note from myself to all the Van Halen fans out there who will be attending their shows...Wolfgang is a great kid, so don't judge him too harshly. I'm sure he'll do just fine!!" (The elipsis is in the original; nothing was skipped in this quotation.) Individuals posting reply comments to Anthony's blog generally described his bass playing and singing as integral to the band, and appreciated his professionalism throughout what they saw as his unfair exclusion from the reunion.

Not sure if this is too long a quote or OK to include as is in the article.

Also, I wonder if the rumors that the band will use pre-recorded vocal harmonies (including Anthony) in the 2007 reunion concerts merits inclusion.

VisitorTalk 05:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Help Needed

I am bad at writing a good fair use thingy for images. Someone find us a picture of Wolfgang Van Halen, and a good one of the 2004 tour (present one sucks) and put it up. Please.(The Elfoid 03:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC))

Why not just contact the band or their publicist and get some free images? See WP:ERP, or User:Videmus Omnia/Requesting free content. Videmus Omnia Talk 03:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
No reply! I doubt they want to remind us the 2004 tour happened anyway (The Elfoid 03:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC))



Genres

Is this still an item of contention, or can it be archived now? VisitorTalk 05:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not claim to know much about the difference between Hard Rock and Heavy Metal, but this seems to be getting changed on this page a lot, and it seems that other than people saying thing s when they edit the genre section, it is not getting talked about.

From what I understand, heavy metal is a sub-genre of Hard Rock, so it is possible for music to classify as both. Going by the wiki definition of hard rock, I would say Van Halen is definitely hard rock all the time, but when I think of songs like "On Fire", "Atomic Punk", "House of Pain", or even "A.F.U. (Naturally Wired)", I think that it would be possible for these songs to be also considered Heavy Metal, because I have heard Heavy Metal in the past that was not as hard as these songs.(Axcess 19:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC))

Van Halen are pure, straightforward Hard Rock and nothing more/nothing less. All Music Guide isn't the most credible of sources.(Unsigned)

Simply making a statement doesn't really prove anything.(Axcess 22:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC))

While the difference between hard rock and heavy metal may not be noticeable for some, keep in mind that "heavy metal" is not just a genre of music, but also a term to describe bands such as Iron Maiden, Judas Priest, Diamond Head, and the likes, because they technically don't belong to any of the sub-genres of metal (except early Maiden was NWOBHM). With Van Halen being much different from those bands and the type of music they play, it would be much more reasonable to not associate them with heavy metal. They influenced metal bands, sure, but like AC/DC, that doesn't make their music heavy metal.

As for the pop rock piece, they did use pop hooks for their songs, in a similar vein to many of the hair bands of the 80's. Yet those bands all fall under the hard rock / glam metal category, which I think Van Halen should too. Glam metal is different from heavy metal, in the sense that it sounds more like rock than metal, and many of their Sammy Hagar era songs would fit that description.

Heavy metal is not a sub-genre of hard rock either. Hard rock is a sub-genre of rock, and while metal may have also started out as a sub-genre of rock, it has become it's own genre.

The two issues here are some people calling them pop rock, some saying heavy metal. I will deal with the former first. While the issue at hand is metal, the band being called pop rock is one worth sorting out as well. Before I start I'll say I'm not the world's biggest Van Halen expert (I own Van Halen, Van Halen II, 1984 and 5150, the Twister soundtrack which features Van Halen and have heard the two new songs from Best of Vol. 1 and the three new songs from The Best of Both Worlds as well as a few others - I have heard songs from all the albums but don't know all of them so well.
The problem is that Van Halen began as 100% pure hard rock, and in the mid-late 1980s morphed into something heavily keyboard orientated, with far softer vocals and lighter tunes. I'd say you could call them pop rock at that point, but Van Halen fans view this as offensive. The reason the tag is so repeatedly removed without it being put on the talk page is they see the idea that rock could be pop (which creates up a stereotypical image of a singer on stage who can't play an instrument, writes none of his songs and is surrounded by synthetic waffle in their minds) is a horrible insult which people appear to take personally.
Personally I suggest we label it as pop rock then have in brackets (mid-1980s - late-1990s) as something of a compromise. The band had 3 number one singles in a row in the mainstream rock chart in 1986-1988, and again in 1991. Three songs in the period 1984-1988 made it into the US top 100, one topping it (Jump - and that song stayed there 5 weeks!). That's suggesting popular. Their albums consistently charted well when they released too. Despite charting better their sales slowed down; Van Halen's earlier albums continued to sell but charted less successfully. Top charting but fast vanishing albums are a common feature of pop music.
Robert Christgau called the 1984 album pop as did Rolling Stone and All Music Guide. All are respected sources cited throughout Wikipedia and used as valued reviews of Van Halen's own albums. Rolling Stone later said in the F.U.C.K album's review that Van Halen were ageing pop artists. So All Music is not the only source suggesting this, and the band's sales information suggests similar. A further source is Amazon.co.uk's official album reviews. As a website trying to sell the music it may be biased, but it too refers to the music as pop or 'heavy pop'. Many websites on the band's biography state among it's covers before they began writing their own material were numerous soft pop songs too - though none specify how they were played it shows pop's influence on the band.
Now onto heavy metal. Once again, all the sources I cited refer to Van Halen as metal. Personally I feel this isn't true, 1984 has no metal at all in it, and none of the albums released since do either. The earlier work it can be argued over, I'd be inclined to say it's not metal but support for the idea is strong anywhere but among some fans on Wikipedia. Another source on top of the others is Yahoo music.
Regardless of people's personal opinions, I feel I provide enough respected sources that we must put up both pop rock and heavy metal, probably bracketing that the metal era was earlier and the pop later. I will find my sources when we reach a decision.
The band shouldn't be labelled as glam metal. That genre's most dominant figures are Motley Crue, followed by bands like W.A.S.P., Ratt, Twisted Sister. You can't really call Van Halen terribly similar to that. Some of Van Halen's releases were glammish but I'd say they're a band that heavily influenced glam metal rather than were a part of it.
solution:
  • Hard Rock
  • Heavy Metal (early material - late 70s, early 80s)
  • Pop rock (mid 80s, 90s)
(The Elfoid 01:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC))
I believe they are a hard rock band plain and simple. But I also believe that Wikipedia is based on verifiable references and not editor opinions so my personal thoughts mean nil. They are referenced as a heavy metal band(not just AMG but many books as well) so the genre should be valid. I DO think that... no matter what concensus is reached... that NO superfluous 'year-year' pigeonholing should be added to the infobox. Trying to define years for genres is as POV as the genres themselves. It looks stupid when it appears in section headings and it looks just as stupid in infoboxes. The rule of the infobox is "keep it brief". Adding "years" or "deceased" or "who played what instrument" into any infobox is just cruft and overkill. Details belong in the article, not the infobox. What ever genres are chosen... do not add year durations as was suggested earlier. It's an encyclopedia... not a book report. 156.34.209.221 01:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you, I only suggest the thing with years as an attempt to reach compromise because some people just won't accept things. (The Elfoid 01:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC))
I think many people see glam metal and heavy metal as synonyms. Correct me if I am wrong cause I wasn't aware of things at the time, but in the 80's many people simply referred to glam metal or hair metal as simply "metal". As a result, people think glam metal is heavy metal. I often listen to Stryper, and they sound a lot like, and were directly influenced by Van Halen. I also listen to a band named Guardian, who's first album sounds even more like van halen than Stryper does. Whenever I look up these bands, they are always listed as heavy metal.
As much of a taboo Glam metal is, I think it could cover the heavy metal and pop rock categories. When i think of pop rock i think of the stuff i listened to in the late 90's. that stuff sounds nothing like 1984, its much MUCH more 'popish'. I would say i strongly disagree with saying van halen is pop rock. I think glam metal is closer, and would rather it said glam metal than pop rock.
I say:
  • Hard Rock
  • Glam Metal
Also, it might be worth while to change the genre to only hard rock for now, because it would get the people on the heavy metal side of this argument in here and talking, after they see the comments.
(Axcess 01:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC))
Slightly off the VH specific topic... Glam metal isn't a musical genre or style. It's a look. To say an artist played glam metal is actually saying the artist played heavy metal... and they had big hair while doing it. As I mentioned before... the whole point of the genre field is to be brief/direct and cut the fluff. Read here for more information on field usage and proper formatting. Hard rock, heavy metal, pop metal, glam metal...etc, etc, etc... in the end they're all just subgenres of Rock. The genre field is the instigator of more edit wars than just about anything else on Wikipedia. Whatever concensus is reached... it probably won't last long... they never do. :D . 156.34.209.221 02:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Quote from info box genre guidelines:
The genre or genres of music performed by the act. Aim for generality (e.g. Hip hop rather than East Coast hip hop).
In light of this i propose a solution.
I think we all agree that:
  • Van Halen is Hard rock
  • Van Halen had an infuence on the Heavy metal of the 80's (tapping and what-not)
I think we should:
  • Set the genre equal to Hard rock and only Hard rock
  • Archive this dicussion when it is finished
  • Place links to this discussion on the talk page and in comments in the code surrounding the genre tag
  • Create a subsection of the "influence on culture, music, etc" section called "Influence on Heavy metal"

What do you think?(Axcess 03:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC))

"Correct me if I am wrong cause I wasn't aware of things at the time, but in the 80's many people simply referred to glam metal or hair metal as simply "metal"."

That is correct. In the USA at least, it dominated metal so much that the rest of the scene faded away totally until thrash metal clawed it's way back up to the surface in around 1987.

"As much of a taboo Glam metal is, I think it could cover the heavy metal and pop rock categories. When i think of pop rock i think of the stuff i listened to in the late 90's."

Eddie Van Halen did the guitar solo on Michael Jackson's Beat It in 1984. Beat It was a crossover pop/rock song really, that's what it was like in the 80s. Other stuff often considered pop rock is The Beatles, The Kinks from the 60s etc. Pop rock's a very open to debate classification though so I understand why it might be a hard tag to add.

KISS were both glam and metal, Van Halen can be called glam metal if they are I guess. I definitely feel just saying hard rock isn't enough.

EDIT: I forgot to sign! (The Elfoid 01:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC))

Adding Insult to injury, heres a quote from *Shudder* Bubblegum Pop.
Also, some bands not known for bubblegum pop nevertheless released singles that arguably fit the genre, some becoming chart-topping hits. For example, the 1980 single "De Do Do Do, De Da Da Da" introduced The Police to an international audience; the single "Jump" from Van Halen's 1984 became a standard for televised sporting events; and in 1988 lead singer Joe Elliott proclaimed "I'm hot, sticky sweet/from my head to my feet, yeah" in Def Leppard's "Pour Some Sugar on Me", a pop-metal hit with obvious influence from "Sugar Sugar." While these artists generally share little in common with the bubblegum pop of the 1960s, the lasting impact of that genre can perhaps be seen in the structure of these songs, if not the sound.
Im suddenly getting an idea of how some other people might see my favorite rock band. We could put bubblegum pop as a genre and see how long that lasts. j/k
Axcess 13:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

When trouble like this arises, a paragraph on 'genre dispute' is usually created. We should do that, listing genre as 'hard rock' and 'disputed subgenres'. It's the only way to make sure people just stop arguing permanently. Even if we reach a decision people'll keep editing it.

Van Halen, like Kiss, Def Leppard, and the hair bands, belongs under the hard rock category, or glam metal. They're much different from pop rock, and are no where near metal, despite having influnced metal bands. I could settle for the disputed subgenres, but I'll tell you for a fact that it's wrong to call Van Halen pop rock or heavy metal. They may have slight elements of it, but that's not enough to qualify. Just look up each and everyone of Van Halen's albums. They're listed as hard rock, and only hard rock. I can't understand why it would be different on the band's Wikipedia page.

The thing is heavy metal is a clearly defined genre, while hard rock is more a broad term for bands that, well, rock hard. Van Halen is definitely a heavy metal band. Sources are pretty much on consensus the matter. For a few examples (largely because I don't want to trawl through the sources I used), look at the mentions of Van Halen in Heavy metal music. WesleyDodds 20:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Those are all for the band's earlier era. At their most influential (when Eddie liked just playing guitar, the band had Roth singing, when they did albums more frequently, and Anthony was a real member of the band instead of a fake half-member like he was 1997-2006 before being kicked out) the band had clearly got traits of heavy metal. My argument is that the band changed. "Why can't this be Love", "Dreams", "Summer Nights" and "Love Walks In" on the 5150 album are all hard to call metal songs. And that was just early in the Hagar era.(The Elfoid 23:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC))

Van Halen are definitely not metal. While they were labeled as metal along with Kiss, Aerosmith, Led Zeppelin, and Deep Purple in the 70's, they aren't considered metal anymore. They were all hard rock. Not metal. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.107.225.143 (talk) 01:15, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

Actually plenty of people would say none of those bands are metal bands, or ever were (KISS and DP are debated, most people agree Led Zep and Aerosmith aren't metal) but they all did metal songs in their career. Cream performed heavy metal sometimes (Sunshine of your Love etc) but were never an actual metal band. (The Elfoid 01:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC))

That's just plain wrong. Seriously before this discussion goes even further people need to take the effort to explore the available sources. All books that deal with metal I've read explicitly label Van Halen as a heavy metal band, in particular one published in 2003. WesleyDodds 03:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Having some metal songs doesn't make them a metal band. And even then, I don't know of any metal Van Halen songs. Could you tell me which ones you consider metal?

The books that state Van Halen and other hard rock bands as metal are doing that because mainstream media such as MTV have labeled them as metal, and at one point in the 70's and 80's, were considered heavy metal because of it. The music they make isn't heavy metal. Just like Bon Jovi, Kiss, Deep Purple, Aerosmith, Led Zeppelin, AC/DC, and others are labeled as heavy metal too on their Wikipedia pages.

What defines metal has changed since then, so all of those including Van Halen are hard rock. Even though newer sources say that they're metal as well, they're going by what they used to be considered.

Pop rock is a different story. Van Halen, even in their David Lee Roth days, used pop hooks. Countless other hard rock and heavy metal bands used pop hooks. That doesn't make them pop rock. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.107.225.143 (talk) 03:14, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

Robert Walser's Running with the Devil: Power, Gender, and Madness in Heavy Metal Music (1993) has a chapter detailing how "Running With the Devil" contains various musical trademarks of heavy metal. And that's one of the few academic studies of the genre from a musical and sociologicl perspective. I also don't see any proof that Van Halen is no longer considered a metal band; Allmusic lists them as such, and Ian Christe's Sound of the Beast: The Complete Headbanging History of Heavy Metal (2003), while it does not consider Led Zeppelin or Deep Purple wholly metal, does consider Van Halen one. The definition of metal being bandied about here has more to do with personal bias rather than a proper consideration of reference material. WesleyDodds 05:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

One song that has metal characteristics isn't enough to make them a metal band. However, it's hard to disagree when so many sources claim they're a heavy metal band. Just know this: the music they make is hard rock, and only hard rock. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GrimReaper39614 (talk • contribs) 17:00, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

Someone tell me how 5150 or Van Halen III are metal (The Elfoid 18:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC))

Not all of a band's output has to be "heavy metal" for it to qualify as heavy metal. The Red Hot Chili Peppers would be an example; their output might no longer be funk metal, but they are a funk metal band. CloudNine 18:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Which of Van Halen's songs are metal? I own every album from Van Halen 1 up to 1984 (Hagar I didn't like too much). Nothing on any of the Van Halen albums is metal. We know that if people are calling Van Hagar pop rock, it can't be metal either. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GrimReaper39614 (talk • contribs) 23:00, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

The question is, "How are you defining metal"? "Running With the Devil", "Ain't Talking About Love", "Jamie's Cryin'", "Unchained" and tons of others are metal songs. WesleyDodds 03:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

"Not all of a band's output has to be "heavy metal" for it to qualify as heavy metal" my point was that while you can't be pop rock and heavy metal at once, the band achieved both at varying times. I can feel some metal in the early albums but by Van Halen III there was none whatsoever.(The Elfoid 01:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC))

Running With the Devil, Ain't Talking About Love, Jamie's Cryin', and Unchained aren't metal. They're hard rock. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GrimReaper39614 (talk • contribs) 16:17, August 21, 2007 (UTC).

At any rate, everyone's time is better spent improving the article, rather than arguing over two words in the infobox. The citations should use the {{cite web}} (or whatever is applicable) template; it's a worthwhile task however. CloudNine 16:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

A valid point. A genre dispute paragraph would take moments to write, I'll do it sometime. Right now the most important thing is sorting out the references - I just use the ref tag since I'm an idiot who can't do better, and it's messy (The Elfoid 17:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC))

The problem is that reliable second and third party sources don't debate the band's genre. I've been trying to emphasize that. WesleyDodds 21:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

A section of the article adressing this issue would be great. It should make everyone involved happy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GrimReaper39614 (talk • contribs) 23:47, August 21, 2007 (UTC).

Album reviews can be used as useable sources - many describe the change and difference in style over time. I can quote Axl Rose saying Van Halen were a true rock band. We can note that Eddie's guitar solo didn't look out of place on a Michael Jackson pop album. The solo output of Roth/Hagar could be used to note their natural variations as vocalists. The style of success achieved (sustained album sales and popular concerts compared to hit singles/charting albums supported by technically advanced stage sets) can be likened to pop or metal. The use of synthetic sounds, often associated with pop (I'm sure we can find a source saying it's a pop thing to do) could be included. There's the fact the band only ever called themselves rock. There's reliable sources for both metal and pop rock, and it's hard to be both. The band's lack of heavy metal style clothing can be noted upon, though Roth was closely associated with bands like Motley Crue according to The Dirt (Motley Crue book).

There's LOADS of evidence that the band's genre classification is all over the place, with stuff pointing in two quite clearly different directions (The Elfoid 00:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC))

Album reviews are not reliable sources when determining a band's genre. They are reliable when referencing the critic's actual opinion, but the point of a review is to critically review a band, not to classify it. All of the points you listed are fine when addressing the band's style, but they have little to do with proper genre. The band's description of themselves as rock is inadequate (after all, heavy metal is a subgenre of rock) and their lack of traditional heavy metal attire is inconsequential (after all, the standard heavy metal look was barely coming together when Van Halen released their first album). The comment "There's reliable sources for both metal and pop rock, and it's hard to be both." relies on a POV either/or duality that is unsuitable for an encyclopedic article. WesleyDodds 03:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Well All Music Guide is trusted as a source, right? It has reviews that mention the changeover of genre.

Also things like the band's look and self-description can be used as reasons for the disputed opinion among fans about their genre, it's definitely something I've heard in discussions. The New Wave of British Heavy Metal (where the 'metal look' became best known) was roughly 79-81, the band had only done one album by then. Reliable sources is not what I would say there are - points which can be used to argue either case is what I would say we have.

Eddie's guitar solo-ing for Michael Jackson and the vocalists styles can be found on usable sources and used quite easily. Various other things (appearance, album sales/chart positions, opinions of other famous musicians or critics) can be used to contribute for the DISPUTE.

I am not saying we say they were both genres at different points in their career - just that it could be ARGUED they were leading to difference in opinion since it's somewhat borderline.

The alternative is put it as hard rock, which would lead to frequent edits by non-regular editors of the page and a continue debate. It's quite clear most of us don't want it to just say 'hard rock'. (The Elfoid 19:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC))

I wouldn't argue with calling them just hard rock. No one ever calls Van Halen a heavy metal band or pop rock band, they call them a hard rock band. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GrimReaper39614 (talk • contribs) 02:52, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

I'm not sure about pop rock, but I am sure that Van Halen is Hard Rock, Heavy Metal, Glam Metal, Speed Metal, and Neoclassical Metal. They are Glam Metal because of their image and their combination of hard rock lyrics with highly distorted metal/rock riffs. They are speed metal bbecause of tapping, shreddind, and EVH's emphasis on speed. They are Neoclassical metal becuase of EVH's classical piano training which influences his guitar playing plus his use of keyboards.

We've been over how there's plenty of things suggesting that's not so already.(The Elfoid 14:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC))

Listening to Van Halen's older albums, where is there metal? There's nothing metal about Jump, Panama, You Really Got Me, Unchained, Jamie's Cryin, Runnin With The Devil, or any of them. It's actually not even close. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GrimReaper39614 (talk • contribs) 21:13, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

I think that Van Halen is hard rock, pop rock, heavy metal and glam metal. All music guide says so and it's a reference. --JNCooper
Like most emo bands, the genre's disputed. On their pages, bands have accepted genres listed and a paragraph on genre disputes explaining why there's argument. We should do the same for this one. Headed "Heavy metal?". (The Elfoid (talk) 01:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC))

The article's lead

Any objection to changing the lead sentence from "rock band" to "hard rock band"? I think that's an especially important distinction for this band.

After "...being legendary," I would like to add a new sentence: "Throughout the changes of singers, the instrumental line-up of Eddie Van Halen on guitar and backing vocals, Eddie's brother Alex on drums, and Michael Anthony on bass and backing vocals remained constant, until Anthony was replaced by Eddie's son Wolfgang for the 2007 reunion." I think the band's membership is significant enough to include in the lead.

I would like to replace "the Roth/Van Halen/Van Halen/Van Halen lineup" with "a lineup of Eddie, Alex, and Wolfgang Van Halen, with Roth returning as singer." VisitorTalk 05:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

We had that for ages, and I thought it looked kinda bloated myself. But it's no big change, so not too important to me if you want it that way :) (The Elfoid 10:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC))

Eddie's cancer

Should there be a mention of Eddie's claim that his tongue cancer was, surprisingly, not related to his cigarette smoking?

Not really, didn't change his career at all.

Im sorry I didnt know where to put this but, there should be a mention that before mammoth eddie played the drums and alex played the guitar. But before long the two relized that the instruments were better for each other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockgenius (talk • contribs) 00:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)